DEVENDER SINGH @ ROXY Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. by Devender Singh @ Roxy in case FIR No.72/2013 registered in P.S. Naraina under section 379/ 411/ 201/ 34 of the IPC.

(2.) According to the prosecution, an FIR was registered at the instance of one Ravinder Singh who complained that his Maruti Van bearing No.DL-2CAF-4520 which was parked under the Naraina flyover was stolen. Based on the FIR, the police arrested a person by name Makdoom on 22.03.2013 from Mayapuri. Two other persons by name Narender Singh and Mahinder Singh, who were the brothers of the accused, were also arrested on 23.03.2013. It appears that some tyres were recovered from them. The allegations against the accused (applicant herein) is that stolen vehicles used to be brought to him and he was in the business of getting the vehicles dismantled in order to sell the parts. The Sessions Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant on the ground that custodial interrogation of the accused is required.

(3.) It is stated before me that both Makdoom and Mahinder who were arrested have been enlarged on bail and that the custodial interrogation of the accused is not required. It further appears that the stolen vehicle was recovered. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor who opposed the bail submitted that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required in order to elicit information from him about other stolen vehicles the persons involved, etc. She submitted that though the applicant, who was granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2013, was directed by this Court to join the investigation, he is not cooperating with the police. The applicant, it is submitted, has also received money for doing the job. As the investigation is at the initial stages, it is contended that the anticipatory bail should not be granted.